On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:33:12AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Eric,
>
> Am Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019, 06:49:39 CET schrieb Eric Biggers:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:52:38AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 7:55 AM Eric Biggers <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > +#define FSCRYPT_FS_KEYRING_DESCRIPTION_SIZE \
> > > > + (CONST_STRLEN("fscrypt-") + FIELD_SIZEOF(struct super_block,
> > > > s_id))
> > > > +
> > > > +#define FSCRYPT_MK_DESCRIPTION_SIZE (2 *
> > > > FSCRYPT_KEY_DESCRIPTOR_SIZE + 1)
> > > > +
> > > > +static void format_fs_keyring_description(
> > > > + char
> > > > description[FSCRYPT_FS_KEYRING_DESCRIPTION_SIZE],
> > > > + const struct super_block *sb)
> > > > +{
> > > > + sprintf(description, "fscrypt-%s", sb->s_id);
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > I fear ->s_id is not the right thing.
> > > For filesystems such as ext4 ->s_id is the name of the backing block
> > > device,
> > > so it is per filesysem instance unique.
> > > But this is not guaranteed. For UBIFS ->s_id is just "ubifs", always.
> > > So the names will clash.
> > >
> >
> > What name do you suggest using for UBIFS filesystems? The keyring name
> > could be
> > set by the filesystem via a fscrypt_operations callback if needed.
>
> IMHO the BDI name should be used.
>
> > Note that the keyring name isn't particularly important, since the ioctls
> > will
> > work regardless. But we might as well choose something logical, since the
> > keyring name will still show up in /proc/keys.
>
> I'm not done with reviewing your patches, but will it be possible to use
> keyctl?
> For the a unique name is helpful. :)
>
Not for adding keys, removing keys, or getting a key's status -- those are what
the ioctls are for.
See e.g. the discussion in patch 7 ("fscrypt: add FS_IOC_ADD_ENCRYPTION_KEY
ioctl") for why the keyrings syscalls are a poor fit for fscrypt.
- Eric
